This is rather like crying foul because courts regulate contracts.
I wonder how the free market would operate without them?
The Internet free market in applications and services wouldn’t
operate very well without net neutrality.

Now they want to squelch everybody else’s P2P and especially online video,
except what they get a cut of.
They think they can get away with it if the FCC stays out of the way,
so now they are against regulation.

Their principles flip-flop kind of like Boehner’s, don’t they?
Bunch of cry babies.

Permitting long distance service to be given away is not in the public interest.

In other words, if the telcos couldn’t make money off of it, nobody should.

A usually reliable source says:

The ACTA petition was the first time that the FCC confronted VoIP as a
policy issue. The FCC, however, never acted on the ACTA petition, and
ACTA, the moving party, no longer exists. The question presented by the
ACTA petition was whether the FCC had regulatory authority to regulate
VoIP Internet software used by individuals to do telephony with each
other, with no service provider in the middle.

It’s interesting that the same telcos that now rail against regulation
were happy to try to use it back in 1995 when it suit their purposes.

So ATCA failed to control VoIP via FCC regulation.
But they can use
volume charging
to eliminate both VoIP and video they don’t provide themselves.

The duopoly’s claims of a few people using too much traffic
are a smokescreen.
The real issue is control:
they want to control what passes through “their” networks
so they can profit by as much of it as possible.
I have no objection to telcos and cablecos making a profit.
I do object to them squelching everybody else to do so.
On the Internet you can connect any two tin cans,
unless the duopoly can cut your string.